Neil Obstat
Reputation: 3238
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 3,727
|
| Nishant2011 said: | Neil Obstat, if I may ask you, why did Archbishop Lefebvre insist on the 1962 Missal? Among both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist groups, it appears to me that the majority does follow the Pope Pius XII reforms.
While I think there can be a pious and respectful criticism of some aspects of it, here is a Msgr.Fenton's evaluation of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, which is overwhelmingly positive.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/piutreatise.htm |
To exemplify my previous post, in this section of the linked Fr. Fenton article, he
certainly seems to think the question of ambiguity over what is and what is not
the Church of Christ has been once and for all settled:
Pope Pius XII issued the Mystici Corporis Christi on June 29, 1943. The first and the most fundamental contribution it made to Catholic thought on the Church is contained in the following sentence:
If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" — an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.4
After this strong and eminently clear declaration, there could be no shadow of excuse for any tactic tending to depict the Mystical Body of Our Lord as in any way distinct from or superior to the visible Catholic Church, the religious society over which the Vicar of Christ rules as the visible head. The expression "Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" appears in this ringing pronouncement of Pius XII as the description and even as the definition of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church. The Mystici Corporis then gives the coup de grace to the teachings that the true Church of Jesus Christ is something other than a visible or truly organized society in this world by the following pronouncement:
Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.5
In the same way this great encyclical letter reproves the error and confusion inherent in the writings of those Catholics who taught the existence of a twofold Church of God in this world:
For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of men He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect in its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements — namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption — was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete.6
Finally, Pope Pius XII, writing in the Mystici Corporis Christi, set forth the truth that the visible Catholic Church is actually the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the true Church of God spoken of in the Scriptures, when he brought out the fact that the members of the Catholic Church recognizable as such, or, in other words, the members of the visible Catholic Church, are the true and only members of the true Church. He wrote:
Actually only those are to be included (annumerandi) as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.7
How many ways can you slice it? He has used a variety of terms, from a variety
of approaches, looking for every nuance and chink in the armor he could
imagine, and concluded that this question must certainly have been thus settled,
did he not?
This is Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, editor of American Ecclesiastical
Review, writing within two months after Pope Pius XII had died (early October
1958) and just over one month after John XXIII was elected (late October 1958).
He is writing this, praising Pius XII for having put an END to the persistent
attempts of the liberals to introduce any confusion or misunderstanding into the
Catholic concept of what the Catholic Church is in relation to the Church of Christ,
outside of which there is no salvation.
Fr. Fenton is praising the Pope for speaking clearly, for giving us something of
enduring value: "After this strong and eminently clear declaration, there could be
no shadow of excuse for any tactic tending to depict the Mystical Body of Our Lord
as in any way distinct from or superior to the visible Catholic Church."
Therefore, one of two things could have happened next.
Either Fr. Fenton was correct, and Rome had spoken, and the cause is finished,
OR,
Rome had spoken and the cause is not finished, in which case Fr. Fenton
would have been wrong.
If the latter, this is not to say that Fr. Fenton was not a good priest, or that he
got his theology wrong, or that he wasn't educated. He could have been the most
qualified and profound theologian and/or journal editor in the history of the world,
and still could have been wrong. He was doing the best he could, and it was a lot
better than any of us could have done, I'm sure.
So, which one actually took place?
Which one happened, in fact? Was Fr. Fenton correct, OR, did he somehow
overlook some detail or make some small mistake or somehow conclude that
something had taken place that had actually somehow not taken place?
|
|
| Posted Aug 8, 2012, 5:52 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Lover of Truth
Reputation: 133
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,592
|
| Quote: | LoverOfTruth,
Please stop needling Hobbledehoy, especially with your fake piety routine. Your calculated attempts to incite anger would make anyone angry.
And yes, that's a warning.
Don't make me choose between the two of you, because the results won't be good for you. |
I'm not "making" you do anything Matthew.
Please do not judge my interior motives:
| Quote: | | "fake" piety routine |
| Quote: | | Your calculated attempts to incite anger would make anyone angry. |
|
.........................
"I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian in the history of the Church
|
| Posted Aug 9, 2012, 11:09 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
